The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[NUFAN]

Not sure if it had been done before.

1 from each country eleven. Sorry Ireland.

Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Kumar Sangakkara
Garry Sobers
Andy Flower
Shakib Al Hasan
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Rashid Khan
Dale Steyn

This is a very nice team. I dont actually think I can move the pieces around in a way to make the team better, well done.

 

[mr_mister]

Yep. Rashid, Shakib, Hadlee and Flower are shoe ins for their country, and you have to go Sanga over Murali coz you've already got 2 spinners

From there it's straight forward

 

[NUFAN]

The only thing I can think of doing is maybe bringing in a right hander to mix up the left handers from 4 to 7. It might mean going say Viv over Sobers as there is already 5 bowlers, but even with this Viv looks more likely at 4 and Sanga 5 so it would then be 4 RH followed by 3 LH.

Or perhaps:
Out: Sobers, Sanga, Steyn
In: Marshall, Murali, Kallis

So: Hobbs Gavaskar Bradman Kallis Flower Shakib Imran Hadlee RashidKhan Marshall Murali.

Thats an insane bowling attack, but I prob like hurricanes team more (maybe on the sub-cont, it would be closer).

Btw.. I dont hate Sobers, just felt he was movable for some reason.

 

[Bolo]

3 spinners and 2 quicks is the wrong balance- no space for murali.

Marshall would complement hadlee and imran much better than steyn. I'd go Kallis (or G Pollock) + Marshall ahead of Steyn and Sobers

 

[NUFAN]

Oh yeah Bolo, i forgot about Kallis, now my team looks really good unless its a game in England or a pitch suited for quicks only.

 

[ankitj]

Yep. Rashid, Shakib, Hadlee and Flower are shoe ins for their country, and you have to go Sanga over Murali coz you've already got 2 spinners

From there it's straight forward

And to get 2 openers from 2 different countries you have to play Gavaskar ahead of Tendulkar. Bradman and Imran are also automatic choices for their countries. Leaves only WI, SA and ENG where there can be changes.

 

[h_hurricane]

Unlucky not to have played more tests XI (with less than 50 tests, ignoring 19th century players)

Barry Richards
Vijay Merchant
Graeme Pollock
George Headley
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
Bill O'Reilly
Shane Bond
Sydney Barnes

 

[a massive zebra]

Short career XI (with less than 50 tests, ignoring 19th century players)

Barry Richards
Vijay Merchant
Graeme Pollock
George Headley
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
Bill O'Reilly
Shane Bond
Sydney Barnes

Most of those didn't have a short career though, either because their country didn't play many Tests (Headley), or because they were not selected for a long time (Barnes), or because their country was banned (Pollock).

 

[h_hurricane]

Most of those didn't have a short career though, either because their country didn't play many Tests (Headley), or because they were not selected for a long time (Barnes), or because their country was banned (Pollock).

I think I should rename it as "Unlucky not to have played more test XI".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Chuck Wayne Daniel in there. A better fast bowler than a lot of the Windies quicks who played a lot more. Clive Lloyd just didn't like him for some reason.

 

[a massive zebra]

Chuck Wayne Daniel in there. A better fast bowler than a lot of the Windies quicks who played a lot more. Clive Lloyd just didn't like him for some reason.

Which bowlers who played a lot more do you have in mind? Definitely worthy of consideration, but surely he is not going to get in the side above any of the bowlers h_hurricane selected? Barnes and O'Reilly are unquestioned ATGs, Bond was one of the most lethal bowlers of the previous generation, while Faulkner and Procter add real depth to the batting lineup.

 

[smash84]

Chuck Wayne Daniel in there. A better fast bowler than a lot of the Windies quicks who played a lot more. Clive Lloyd just didn't like him for some reason.

Sylvester Clark a good option too.

 

[trundler]

Dudley Nourse

 

[kyear2]

If Smith keeps catching like this, he may just force in spot in the 1ar team. Team up to give Sobers his best partner yet.., well since Hammond of course. Smith at 1st, Sobers 2nd and Warne 3rd.

Two thoughts though.

1. It's obviously arguable that 2 of the top 10 batsmen ever both started out in the national team as left arm spinners. Was it that their batting talent was somehow missed or they were just late bloomers?

2. It always assumed that Gilchrist is one of about 5 automatic picks for this team (for me Hutton, Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall), but was he really the equal of Knott (or even the likes of Jock Cameron) with the gloves or just as with the argument with the bowling all rounders, not as good but not as large a gulf with the gloves as with the bat?
Of course if Knott is the selection, that makes a much stronger case for Imran to be included to bat @ 7.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If Smith keeps catching like this, he may just force in spot in the 1ar team. Team up to give Sobers his best partner yet.., well since Hammond of course. Smith at 1st, Sobers 2nd and Warne 3rd.

Two thoughts though.

1. It's obviously arguable that 2 of the top 10 batsmen ever both started out in the national team as left arm spinners. Was it that their batting talent was somehow missed or they were just late bloomers?

2. It always assumed that Gilchrist is one of about 5 automatic picks for this team (for me Hutton, Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall), but was he really the equal of Knott (or even the likes of Jock Cameron) with the gloves or just as with the argument with the bowling all rounders, not as good but not as large a gulf with the gloves as with the bat?
Of course if Knott is the selection, that makes a much stronger case for Imran to be included to bat @ 7.

Gilchrist was certainly not the equal Alan Knott as a keeper. He was a Test class keeper so a fair pick in an all time XI based on modern trends, but he was not a keeper in the class of Knott, or indeed a few others including Healy.

 

[kyear2]

Gilchrist was certainly not the equal Alan Knott as a keeper. He was a Test class keeper so a fair pick in an all time XI based on modern trends, but he was not a keeper in the class of Knott, or indeed a few others including Healy.

Yeah, Healy I can clearly recall. He was brilliant.

And not to take away from his skill, but damn he was one of the worst sledgers. Also a few memories of him, how to say this nicely, not always playing the game the way it should be played.

He was truly special keeping to Warne though.

 

[Slifer]

Healey was a tool. Stumped lara in the 92 series when he didnt have the ball in his glove....

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Which bowlers who played a lot more do you have in mind? Definitely worthy of consideration, but surely he is not going to get in the side above any of the bowlers h_hurricane selected? Barnes and O'Reilly are unquestioned ATGs, Bond was one of the most lethal bowlers of the previous generation, while Faulkner and Procter add real depth to the batting lineup.

He gets in ahead of Bond. It's probably not quite the case that there were a lot of quicks who played more for the West Indies. He a better bowler than Croft of the famous "quartet" who played regularly. I might be a bit biased having watched a lot of County Cricket in that era. It was more that there seemed to be the likes of Eldine Baptiste and Milton Small who were getting Tests here and there who were vastly inferior bowlers. I don't think he would have been too far behind Holding and Garner had he played 40 to 50 Tests.

 

[AndrewB]

Andy Roberts, Wes Hall and Alan Davidson are also possible pace bowlers for the "less than 50 Tests" XI.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

50 is way too many really. Needs to be 20. John Snow is better than any of them on the under 50 list.